Italian, english, español

 

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to come across situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate display cases, it becomes the object of attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloristic, Unfortunately we are experiencing it these days with the display of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, in front of which there are more cell phone photographs than prayers.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

.

PDF print format article – Article print fortmat – Article in printed format

.

.

When it comes to relics, an area of ​​the life of the Church is touched upon which, more than others, today risks being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to superficial devotional practice, on the other rejected as a residue of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, it is necessary to return to the theological foundation that makes the veneration of relics in the Catholic tradition understandable and justifiable.

The relics, in their most proper form, they are made up of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. Alongside these are the so-called "second class" relics, that is, objects belonging to the Saints, and those "by contact", that is, objects that have been placed in physical relationship with their body or with their grave. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not only concern the soul, but it involves the whole person, in his unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is rooted in faith in the Incarnation and in the resurrection of the flesh. The body of the Saint is not a simple biological remains, but a body that was the temple of the Holy Spirit and which is destined for definitive transfiguration. This is why it is guarded, honored and venerated: not as such, but as a concrete sign of the work of God's grace in history.

Already the Holy Scripture attests that God can operate through the mediation of matter. Just think of the Old Testament story in which a dead man comes back to life upon contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (cf.. 2Re 13,21), or to the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the apostle Paul and which were brought to the sick (cf.. At 19,11-12). It's not about attributing magical power to objects, but to recognize that divine grace can make use of concrete mediations.

Already in medieval times there was no shortage of severe warnings against the degenerations of certain devotional practices. If literature has fixed the figure of Friar Cipolla in the common memory, made famous by the skilful irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, on the level of real preaching no less energetic was Saint Bernardino of Siena, who in a well-known sermon condemned in no uncertain terms the proliferation of dubious relics, like that of the ampoule containing the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf.. Hypocritical devotions, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). This is a topic on which Father Ariel S. wrote a few years ago in these columns. Levi di Gualdo, which he took up in a deliberately colorful — and not always understood — form, especially by those who do not want to understand - the same question, highlighting how certain devotional tendencies are not a modern invention at all, but an ever-present risk in the life of the Church (cf.. Who).

In this context the use of relics "by contact" was also born, like the so-called brandea, that is, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs, which were then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. However, it is necessary to make it clear that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes a power in itself to the object, almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, he recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and his action. Grace does not reside in matter as in an autonomous force, but it is always a gift from God, which can also use sensitive signs to reach man.

Over the centuries, the relationship with the relics has seen different developments, not always free from ambiguity. In some eras there has been a certain spectacularization, with exhibitions that risk attracting curiosity rather than devotion. Even today it is not difficult to come across situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate display cases, it becomes the object of attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloristic, Unfortunately we are experiencing it these days with the display of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, in front of which there are more cell phone photographs than prayers. And this is where serious discernment is required. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and the life of grace, if it is not inserted in a context of faith and catechesis, it risks becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can be transformed into a simple relic of the past.

We must then ask ourselves what meaning can the veneration of relics have today?, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer can only be the same as the tradition of the Church has always given: they make sense to the extent that they refer to Christ and his work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because the grace of God was manifested in him. The relic, so, it is a concrete memory of holiness, testimony of the Incarnation and reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. It speaks to the believer not about death, but of life; not of a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully guarding these testimonies, it is also called to educate the faithful on their correct meaning. Without adequate training, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

Venerate the relics it means, ultimately, recognize that the salvation brought about by Christ concerns man in his entirety and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they can be understood as a concrete extension of the logic of the Incarnation in the history of the Church. Only under this condition does their presence retain an authentic spiritual value; otherwise, the relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion, they risk giving life to the correct and realistic sketch of Friar Cipolla created by Giovanni Boccaccio.

Florence, 20 March 2026

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of a saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate reliquaries, becomes the object of an attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately witnessing this in these very days with the exposition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than prayers.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

.

When speaking of relics, one touches upon an area of the Church’s life which, more than others, risks today being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to a superficial devotional practice, on the other rejected as a remnant of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, it is necessary to return to the theological foundation that renders the veneration of relics intelligible and justifiable within the Catholic tradition.

Relics, in their most proper form, consist of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. Alongside these are the so-called “second-class” relics, that is, objects belonging to the Saints, and those “by contact,” namely objects that have been placed in physical relation with their body or their tomb. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not concern the soul alone, but involves the entire person, in the unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is rooted in the faith in the Incarnation and in the resurrection of the flesh. The body of the Saint is not a mere biological remnant, but a body that has been a temple of the Holy Spirit and that is destined for definitive transfiguration. For this reason it is preserved, honored and venerated: not in itself, but as a concrete sign of the work of God’s grace in history.

Sacred Scripture itself attests that God can act through the mediation of matter. Suffice it to recall the account in the Old Testament in which a dead man returns to life upon contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (cf. 2 Kgs 13:21), or the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the Apostle Paul and were brought to the sick (cf. Acts 19:11–12). This is not a matter of attributing magical power to objects, but of recognizing that divine grace can make use of concrete mediations.

Already in the medieval period there were no lack of severe warnings against the degeneration of certain devotional practices. If literature has fixed in the common imagination the figure of Friar Cipolla, made famous by the refined irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, on the level of real preaching no less forceful was Saint Bernardino of Siena, who in a well-known sermon sharply denounced the proliferation of dubious relics, such as the vial said to contain the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf. Hypocritical devotionse, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). On this subject, Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo wrote some years ago in these very pages, taking up the same question in deliberately vivid — and not always understood by those who simply do not wish to understand — terms, showing how such devotional deviations are by no means a modern invention, but a perennial risk within the life of the Church (cf. Here).

Within this context also arose the use of relics “by contact,” such as the so-called brandea, that is, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs and then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. It is nevertheless necessary to state clearly that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes to the object a power in itself, almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and to His action. Grace does not reside in matter as an autonomous force, but is always the gift of God, who may also make use of sensible signs to reach man.

Over the centuries, the relationship with relics has undergone different developments, not always free from ambiguity. In certain periods there has been a degree of theatricalization, with displays that risk attracting curiosity more than devotion. Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of a saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate cases, becomes the object of an attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately witnessing this in these very days with the exposition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than prayers. Here a serious discernment becomes necessary. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and to the life of grace, if it is not inserted within a context of faith and catechesis, it risks becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can be reduced to a mere relic of the past.

One must then ask what meaning the veneration of relics can have today, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer can only be the same that the Church’s tradition has always given: they have meaning insofar as they refer to Christ and to His work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because in him the grace of God has been manifested. The relic, therefore, is a concrete memory of holiness, a testimony of the Incarnation and a reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. It speaks to the believer not of death, but of life; not of a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully safeguarding these testimonies, is also called to educate the faithful to their proper meaning. Without adequate formation, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

To venerate relics ultimately means to recognize that the salvation accomplished by Christ concerns the human person in his entirety and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they may be understood as a concrete prolongation of the logic of the Incarnation within the history of the Church. Only under this condition does their presence retain an authentic spiritual value; otherwise, relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion risk giving rise to the very real and fitting caricature of Friar Cipolla imagined by Giovanni Boccaccio¹.

Florence, March 20, 2026

.

¹Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) was an Italian writer of the fourteenth century and a central figure of late medieval and early humanist culture. His most famous work, the Decameron, is a collection of one hundred novellas. Among them, the story of Friar Cipolla humorously portrays the abuse of false relics, offering a satirical critique of certain late medieval devotional practices.

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate urns, becomes the object of attention that can easily slide towards the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately experiencing it these days with the exhibition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than sentences.

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

.

When talking about relics, It touches on an area of ​​the life of the Church that, more than others, today runs the risk of being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to superficial devotional practice, on the other hand rejected as a residue of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, It is necessary to return to the theological foundation that makes the veneration of relics understandable and justifiable in the Catholic tradition..

The relics, in its most proper form, They are made up of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. To these are added the so-called “second class” relics., that is to say, objects belonging to the Saints, and “by contact”, that is to say, objects that have been placed in physical relationship with your body or with your grave. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not only affect the soul, but it involves the whole person, in the unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is based on faith in the Incarnation and the resurrection of the flesh. The Saint's body is not a simple biological remains, but a body that has been a temple of the Holy Spirit and that is destined for definitive transfiguration. That is why it is guarded, honored and revered: not in itself, but as a concrete sign of the work of God's grace in history.

The Holy Scripture itself attests that God can work through the mediation of matter. Just think of the Old Testament story in which a dead man comes back to life when he comes into contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha. (cf. 2 Re 13,21), or in the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the apostle Paul and that were taken to the sick (cf. Hch 19,11-12). It is not about attributing magical power to objects, but to recognize that divine grace can use concrete mediations.

Already in medieval times There was no lack of severe warnings against the degenerations of certain devotional practices.. If literature has fixed the figure of Brother Cipolla in common memory, made famous by the refined irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, On the level of royal preaching, Saint Bernardine of Siena was no less energetic., who in a famous sermon bluntly denounced the proliferation of dubious relics, like the vial that supposedly contained the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf. Hypocritical devotions, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). Father Ariel S. wrote about this topic some years ago in these same pages.. Levi di Gualdo, taking up the question in deliberately vivid terms - and not always understood by those who do not want to understand - showing how these devotional drifts are not at all a modern invention, but a constant risk in the life of the Church (cf. Herein).

In this context The use of relics “by contact” also emerged, like the calls brandea, that is to say, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs and then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. However, It is necessary to clearly state that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes power in itself to the object., almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and his action. Grace does not reside in matter as in an autonomous force, but it is always a gift from God, which can also use sensitive signs to reach man.

throughout the centuries, The relationship with relics has seen various developments, not always free of ambiguity. In some periods there has been a certain spectacularization, with exhibitions that risk attracting curiosity more than devotion. Also today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate urns, becomes the object of attention that can easily slide towards the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately experiencing it these days with the exhibition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than sentences. Serious discernment is required here.. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and the life of grace, if it is not inserted in a context of faith and catechesis, runs the risk of becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can become a simple vestige of the past.

It fits then ask what meaning the veneration of relics can have today, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer cannot be other than what the tradition of the Church has always given.: They make sense to the extent that they refer to Christ and his work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because the grace of God has been manifested in him. The relic is, therefore, concrete memory of holiness, testimony of the Incarnation and reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. Speak to the believer not of death, but of life; not from a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully guarding these testimonies, is also called to educate the faithful in its authentic meaning. Without proper training, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

Venerating relics means, ultimately, recognize that the salvation accomplished by Christ concerns man as a whole and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they can be understood as a concrete extension of the logic of the Incarnation in the history of the Church.. Only under this condition does its presence retain authentic spiritual value.; otherwise, relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion risk giving life to the fair and realistic caricature of Brother Cipolla imagined by Giovanni Boccaccio¹.

Florence, 20 March 2026

.

¹ Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) He was an Italian writer of the 14th century and a central figure of late medieval and prehumanist culture.. His best known work, he Decameron, It is a collection of one hundred stories. Among them, The story of Brother Cipolla ironically presents the abuse of false relics, offering a satirical critique of certain devotional practices of the late Middle Ages.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Italian, english, español

 

HOW EASY IS ABSTINENCE FROM MEAT AS PENITENCE

Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple sandwich with mortadella than to order a sea bass costing eighty euros a kilo. Not because ecclesial discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has transformed. Abstinence remains a sign, but the sign risks becoming empty if its profound meaning is not understood.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

Not out of biting Florentine irony, but truth: I have sometimes wondered, with sincere curiosity - what Lenten penances can be proposed to vegetarians and vegans if they don't already eat meat themselves. Maybe abstinence from soy? Or from the organic salad? The question can make you smile, but it hides another one, much more serious: what it really means to do penance?

Abstinence from meat it does not arise from an ecclesiastical dietetics nor from an ancient theological distrust towards steak. It has its roots in an ascetic tradition that has always understood the symbolic and pedagogical value of food. In ancient societies, meat was not an ordinary food, but a sign of celebration, of abundance, of joy. Giving it up meant voluntarily taking away what was perceived as precious. It wasn't about mortifying the body, but to educate desire.

The Church has safeguarded this discipline not as an end in itself, but as a concrete sign of an interior attitude: the conversion. As Saint Leo the Great remembered, «Lenten fasting does not only consist of abstinence from food, but above all in moving away from sin" (The word is 39, 2). Christian penance has never been a punitive exercise, but a path of freedom. You give up something lawful to remind yourself that not everything that is lawful is necessary, and that happiness does not depend on possession but on the order of the heart.

With the changing times, however, perceptions also change. Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple sandwich with mortadella than to order a sea bass costing eighty euros a kilo. Not because ecclesial discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has transformed. Abstinence remains a sign, but the sign risks becoming empty if its profound meaning is not understood.

The point is not the meat: it is freedom. Penance does not consist in changing the menu, but in changing size. It is not deprivation as an end in itself, nor an exercise in ascetic voluntarism. It is an orderly renunciation of a good to acquire a greater good. It is taking something away from consumption to return it to faith, to hope and charity. Because «where is your treasure, your heart will also be there" (Mt 6,21): penance moves the treasure to reorient the heart. And maybe, in our time, the most difficult penances do not necessarily pass by the plate. Giving up steak can be relatively simple; giving up the screen on for hours can be much less. Turn off your phone, limit the use of social media, avoid entertainment as an end in itself, preserve silence in a world that lives on continuous noise: these are deprivations that touch raw nerves.

For most, it's harder to refrain from notifications and comments that gives a bloody Florentine steak. but yet, if penance has the aim of educating desire and strengthening inner freedom, that's exactly where the challenge takes place. Saint Paul expressed it with athletic images:

«I treat my body harshly and reduce it to slavery, because when you, after preaching to others, I myself will be disqualified" (1 Color 9,27).

The Pauline one is not contempt for the body, but discipline of freedom. Christian penance is not impoverishment, but an investment. It does not produce sterility, but fruitfulness. Giving up something for the love of God means creating space for God to act. It is a gesture that reduces the superfluous to bring out the essential. And the essential, for the Christian, it is not the sacrifice itself, but communion with Christ.

Lent is precisely this: a penitential journey that culminates in Holy Week and opens to the joy of the Resurrection. It is not a period of ritual sadness, but a time of preparation. We cross the desert to reach Easter. We give up something temporary to remind ourselves that we are destined for the eternal.

Abstinence from meat, At that time, it is not a disciplinary relic nor a food formalism. It's a sign. And like every sign, asks to be understood. If it remains an external gesture, it is reduced to empty practice. If it becomes a conscious act, it turns into a school of freedom. Whether it's meat, of screens or other ingrained habits, the question remains the same: I am the master of my desires or I am governed by them? Penance serves to answer this question with a concrete act. Because true mortification is not giving up what costs us nothing, but learning to say "no" to what dominates us, to be able to say a greater “yes” to God. And that "yes" does not end in forty days. It is the anticipation of an Easter that will never end.

Florence, 23 February 2026

.

HOW EASY IS ABSTINENCE FROM MEAT AS A PENITENTIAL PRACTICE

Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple mortadella sandwich than to order a sea bass costing eighty euros per kilogram. Not because ecclesial discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has changed. Abstinence remains a sign, yet the sign risks becoming empty if it is not understood in its deeper meaning.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

.

Not out of sharp Florentine irony, but in truth: at times I have wondered, with sincere curiosity, what Lenten penances might be proposed to vegetarians and vegans if they already do not eat meat. Perhaps abstinence from soy? Or from organic salad? The question may provoke a smile, but it conceals another, far more serious one: what does it truly mean to do penance?

Abstinence from meat does not arise from ecclesiastical dietetics nor from some ancient theological suspicion toward steak. It is rooted in an ascetical tradition that has always understood the symbolic and pedagogical value of food. In ancient societies, meat was not an ordinary food but a sign of celebration, abundance, and joy. To renounce it meant voluntarily refraining from what was perceived as precious. It was not about mortifying the body, but about educating desire.

The Church has preserved this discipline not as an end in itself, but as a concrete sign of an interior disposition: conversion. As Saint Leo the Great recalled, “Lenten fasting does not consist only in abstinence from food, but above all in turning away from sin” (The word is 39, 2). Christian penance has never been a punitive exercise, but a path to freedom. One renounces something lawful in order to remind oneself that not everything lawful is necessary, and that happiness does not depend on possession but on the order of the heart.

With the passing of time, however, perceptions also change. Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple mortadella sandwich than to order a sea bass costing eighty euros per kilogram. Not because ecclesial discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has changed. Abstinence remains a sign, yet the sign risks becoming empty if it is not understood in its deeper meaning.

The point is not meat; it is freedom. Penance does not consist in changing the menu, but in changing the measure. It is not deprivation for its own sake, nor an exercise in ascetical voluntarism. It is an ordered renunciation of a good in order to acquire a greater good. It is withdrawing something from consumption in order to restore it to faith, hope, and charity. For “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Mt 6:21): penance shifts the treasure so as to reorient the heart. And perhaps, in our own time, the more difficult penances do not necessarily pass through the plate. Renouncing a steak may prove relatively simple; renouncing a screen left on for hours may be far more difficult. Turning off the phone, limiting the use of social media, abstaining from entertainment for its own sake, preserving silence in a world that lives in constant noise: these are privations that touch exposed nerves.

For many — perhaps for most — it is more arduous to abstain from notifications and comments than from a rare Florentine steak. Yet if penance aims to educate desire and strengthen interior freedom, it is precisely there that the challenge lies. Saint Paul expressed it with athletic imagery:

“I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Color 9:27).

Paul’s words do not express contempt for the body, but discipline of freedom. Christian penance is not impoverishment, but investment. It does not produce sterility, but fruitfulness. To renounce something for love of God means creating space for God to act. It is a gesture that reduces the superfluous in order to bring forth the essential. And for the Christian, the essential is not sacrifice in itself, but communion with Christ.

Lent is precisely this: a penitential journey that culminates in Holy Week and opens onto the joy of the Resurrection. It is not a season of ritual sadness, but a time of preparation. One crosses the desert in order to reach Easter. One renounces something temporary in order to remember that we are destined for eternity.

Abstinence from meat, then, is neither a disciplinary relic nor a dietary formalism. It is a sign. And like every sign, it asks to be understood. If it remains an exterior gesture, it becomes an empty practice. If it becomes a conscious act, it turns into a school of freedom. Whether it concerns meat, screens, or other entrenched habits, the question remains the same: am I master of my desires, or am I governed by them? Penance helps us answer that question with a concrete act. For true mortification is not renouncing what costs us nothing, but learning to say “no” to what dominates us, in order to say a greater “yes” to God. And that “yes” does not end after forty days. It is the anticipation of an Easter that will know no sunset.

Florence, 23 February 2026

.

HOW EASY IS ABSTINENCE FROM MEAT AS PENANCE

Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple mortadella sandwich than to order a sea bass that costs eighty euros per kilo. Not because church discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has changed. Abstinence is still a sign, but the sign runs the risk of becoming empty if it is not understood in its deepest meaning.

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

.

Not because of sharp Florentine irony, but in truth: sometimes I have wondered, with sincere curiosity, What Lenten penances can be proposed to vegetarians and vegans if they do not already eat meat?. Maybe soy withdrawal? Or organic salad? The question can bring a smile, but it contains another much more serious: What does it really mean to do penance??

Abstinence from meat is not born from an ecclesiastical diet nor from an ancient theological distrust of steak. It has its roots in an ascetic tradition that has always understood the symbolic and pedagogical value of food. In ancient societies, meat was not an ordinary food, but a party sign, of abundance and joy. Giving it up meant voluntarily withdrawing from what was perceived as precious.. It was not about mortifying the body, but to educate the desire.

The Church has preserved this discipline not as an end in itself, but as a concrete sign of an inner disposition: the conversion. As Saint Leo the Great remembered, «Lenten fasting does not consist only of abstinence from food, but above all in turning away from sin." (The word is 39, 2). Christian penance has never been a punitive exercise, but a path of freedom. You give up something lawful to remind yourself that not everything lawful is necessary., and that happiness does not depend on possession, but of the order of the heart.

With the passage of time, however, perceptions also change. Today it may be more penitential to eat a simple mortadella sandwich than to order a sea bass that costs eighty euros per kilo. Not because church discipline has become obsolete, but because social reality has changed. Abstinence is still a sign, but the sign runs the risk of becoming empty if it is not understood in its deepest meaning.

The point is not the meat: it's freedom. Penance is not about changing the menu, but in changing the measurement. It is not deprivation in and of itself., nor exercise of ascetic voluntarism. It is an ordered renunciation of a good to acquire a greater good.. It is subtracting something from consumption to return it to faith, to hope and charity. Because "where is your treasure?", "Your heart will also be there." (Mt 6,21): Penance moves the treasure to reorient the heart. and maybe, in our time, the most difficult penances do not necessarily go through the plate. Giving up steak can be relatively easy; Giving up a screen on for hours can be much more difficult. Turn off the phone, limit the use of social networks, refrain from empty entertainment, guarding silence in a world that lives in constant noise: These are deprivations that touch sensitive nerves.

For many — perhaps most — It is more difficult to abstain from notifications and comments than from a good Florentine steak. However, If penitence aims to educate desire and strengthen inner freedom, It is precisely there where the challenge is played. Saint Paul expressed it with athletic images:

«I punish my body and enslave it, lest, having preached to others, "I myself was disqualified." (1 Color 9,27).

The Pauline is not contempt for the body, but discipline of freedom. Christian penance is not impoverishment, but investment. Does not produce sterility, but fertility. Giving up something for the love of God means creating space for God to act.. It is a gesture that reduces the superfluous to bring out the essential. and the essential, for the christian, it is not the sacrifice itself, but communion with Christ.

Lent is precisely this: a penitential path that culminates in Holy Week and opens to the joy of the Resurrection. It is not a period of ritual sadness, but a time of preparation. You cross the desert to reach Easter. Something temporary is given up to remember that we are destined for eternity.

Abstinence from meat, so, It is not a disciplinary relic nor a dietary formalism. It's a sign. And like every sign, asks to be understood. If it remains an external gesture, is reduced to an empty practice. If it becomes a conscious act, becomes a school of freedom. Whether it's meat, of screens or other ingrained customs, the question remains the same: Am I master of my desires or am I governed by them?? Penance serves to answer that question with a concrete act. Because true mortification is not giving up what costs us nothing, but learning to say “no” to that which dominates us, to be able to say a bigger “yes” to God. And that “yes” is not exhausted in forty days. It is the preview of an Easter that will never end..

Florence, 23 February 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

 

Italian, english, español

 

LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. BECAUSE IT IS NOT A POND TO BE CONFIRMED

As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

.

In the last few years we have witnessed the proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy - and in particular the Eucharistic celebration - not the place of ecclesial unity, but a terrain of ideological conflict. It is not simply a question of different sensitivities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups who, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, they project personal fragilities into the liturgy, internal discomforts and needs for self-reassurance of identity.

It needs to be said clearly: using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a very serious ecclesial fact, because it strikes the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy was never conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as a space in which the Church receives itself from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to ends foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to what it never was.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not private initiative nor group language. The Second Vatican Council clearly expressed this truth by stating that the liturgy is «the culmination towards which the action of the Church tends and, together, the source from which all his virtue emanates" (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place where the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Using the liturgy to divide means contradicting its deepest nature. The liturgy was not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become.: «Be what you see and receive what you are» (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into an instrument of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most overlooked by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also a primary form of transmission of the faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church they were fully aware of it. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical catecheses, he did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience, because it is the mystery celebrated that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, he does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: guests, silences, posture, rhythms, symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reducing the liturgy to aesthetics it means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be experienced. In this way it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating an adult and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents it is a theologically essential distinction and must be clarified very well, because at the root of many liturgical deviations there is the confusion - sometimes deliberate - between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, he has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance it's about what makes the Sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form desired by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but from the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, instead, they include the external elements of the celebration: the language, ritual forms, discipline, the celebratory structures. They are not only changeable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often evoked inappropriately, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites "save and integrate the substance of the sacraments" (Council of Trent, sess. XXI).

Elevate a language, like Latin, or a historical ritual, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, at the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because these elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these levels means absolutising what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential.

The history of the liturgy testifies that the Church has never conceived of worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline has undergone profound transformations; the celebratory forms have changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this happened without the faith of the Church fading, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents has always been safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality to be "frozen" it means adopting a museum vision of the Church, foreign to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, it is not an aesthetic refuge, it is not a terrain of identity claims. It is the place in which the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill internal voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A STAGNANT POOL TO BE PRESERVED

As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable proliferation of groups and environments that make of the liturgy — and in particular of the Eucharistic celebration — not the place of ecclesial unity, but a field of ideological confrontation. This is not simply a matter of different sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather of an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic, identity-forming element or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups which, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project onto the liturgy personal fragilities, inner discomforts, and needs for identity-based self-reassurance.

This must be stated clearly: to use the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a means of division is an ecclesially most serious matter, because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a space for subjective self-definition, but as the place in which the Church receives herself from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to purposes foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to something it has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth with clarity, affirming that the liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed and, at the same time, the font from which all her power flows” (Holy Council, no. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests herself as the Body of Christ.

To use the liturgy as an instrument of division means to contradict its deepest nature. The liturgy is not born to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become: “Be what you see, and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into a tool of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the most neglected aspects by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic issue is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not only celebration, but also the primary form of the transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated the faithful by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church were fully aware of this. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical Catecheses, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience itself, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates understanding of the faith. Indeed, the liturgy teaches not only through words, but through the whole ensemble of signs: gestures, silences, postures, rhythms, and symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis I, 1).

To reduce the liturgy to aesthetics means to empty it of its formative function and to transform it into an object to be contemplated rather than a mystery to be lived. In this way, it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating a mature and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: a necessary distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically indispensable and must be clearly explained, because at the root of many liturgical distortions lies the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished between these two levels.

Substance concerns what makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the Real Presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but on the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, on the other hand, include the external elements of the celebration: language, ritual forms, disciplines, and celebrative structures. These elements are not only mutable, but must change, because the liturgy is inserted into history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often invoked improperly, acknowledged the Church’s authority to regulate the rites, “the substance of the sacraments being preserved intact” (Council of Trent, Session XXI).

To elevate a language, such as Latin, or a historical rite, such as the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because such elements lack value, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. To confuse these levels means to absolutize what is historically determined and to relativize what is essential.

The history of the liturgy shows that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the early centuries, different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; celebrative forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this took place without the faith of the Church being diminished, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always preserved.

To think of the liturgy as something to be “frozen” is to adopt a museum-like vision of the Church, foreign to her nature. As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, not an aesthetic refuge, not a terrain for identity-based claims. It is the place in which the Church receives her form from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill inner voids or to construct identities alternative to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS A LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A POND THAT SHOULD FREEZE

As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

.

In recent years There has been a proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy – and in particular the Eucharistic celebration – not the place of ecclesial unity., but a field of ideological confrontation. It is not simply a question of diverse sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, This phenomenon is promoted by strictly secular groups that, more than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project personal frailties onto the liturgy, interior discomforts and needs for identity self-affirmation.

It is necessary to say it clearly: Using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a fact of extreme ecclesial gravity., because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as the space in which the Church receives from itself the mystery that it celebrates. When the liturgy is subjected to purposes foreign to its nature, is emptied and reduced to something that has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth clearly when it stated that the liturgy is “the summit towards which the action of the Church tends and, at the same time, the source from which all its strength flows” (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Use the liturgy to divide means contradicting your deepest nature. The liturgy is not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated at the altar is what they are called to become.: “Be what you see and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy becomes an instrument of confrontation, It is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most neglected by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension.. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also the primary form of transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church They were fully aware of it.. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in their mystagogical catechesis, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but from liturgical experience, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: gestures, silences, postures, symbolic rhythms and languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reduce the liturgy to aesthetics It means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be lived.. In this way it stops being a living catechism and becomes a self-referential experience., incapable of generating an adult and truly ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: an essential distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically essential and must be clarified precisely., because at the root of many liturgical drifts is the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance refers to that which makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and guarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but of the saving action of Christ.

The accidents, instead, They include the external elements of the celebration: the tongue, ritual forms, the disciplines, the celebratory structures. These elements are not only mutable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to specific men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often improperly invoked, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites, “saves and integrates the substance of the sacraments” (Council of Trent, XXI session).

Raise a tongue, like latin, a historical rite, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith constitutes a serious theological error. Not because such elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these plans means absolutizing what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential..

The history of the liturgy demonstrates that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries, various rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; Celebratory forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural demands. All this occurred without the faith of the Church being undermined., precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality that must be “frozen” It means adopting a museum vision of the Church, alien to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, It is not an aesthetic refuge, It is not a terrain of identity claim. It is the place where the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates.. When the liturgy divides, It is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill interior voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Italian, english, español

 

PINK DUES AT THE ALTAR ARE REQUIRED? FROM FEMINIST THEO-IDEOLOGY TO THE PASTORAL WISDOM OF SRI LANKA

The bishop can allow altar girls, but he cannot force parish priests to use them. The non-ordained faithful "do not have a right" to serve at the altar and the obligation remains to promote male groups of altar boys, also for their proven vocational value.

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article – PDF article print format – PDF article in printed format

.

Seeing children around the altar it cheers the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe - starting from our Italy - in which the birth rate has been at a standstill for decades and the average age of the population, and the clergy, continues to rise. In such a fragile context, the presence of children in church is already good news, a foretaste of the future.

In the video: S. AND. Rev.ma Mons. Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Bishop of Galle (Sri Lanka)

When two parents apologized to me at the end of the Holy Mass for the two somewhat noisy children, answered: «As long as children make noise in our churches, it means we are always alive". I didn't add it then, but I'll do it now as an aside in the discussion: when during the sacred liturgies we will no longer hear the voices of children, we will surely hear those of the muezzins who will sing from the bell towers of our churches transformed into mosques, as has already happened in various Northern European countries. The examples are known, I'll just take a few: in Hamburg the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was purchased and reopened as the Al-Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam the Fatih Moskee is located in the former Catholic church of Saint Ignatius; in Bristol the Jamia Mosque is located in the former St. Katherine’s Church. As for the call of the muezzin with loudspeakers, the city of Cologne started in 2021 a city project that allows Friday recall, then stabilized in 2024.

In the last decades, in quite a few dioceses the habit of admitting girls to serve at the altar has become established. Practice that many bishops and parish priests, even though I don't love her, they tolerated or maintained so as not to spark controversy. Over the years some of them, having now become adolescents and young people, they continued to serve at the altar, not without embarrassment for some priests, including yours truly, who with extreme politeness has never allowed girls and especially teenage girls to serve. Of course, it's not about preventing women from certain services, but to think with pedagogical pastoral wisdom: how many priestly vocations were born next to the altar, in the group of altar boys? And how do you explain to a little girl who is passionate about liturgy that the ministry of the Order is not, nor can it be a perspective open to her female condition? Because on this point the doctrine is very clear: «Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination» (Code of Canon Law 1983, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes itself as bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1577); and the Holy Pontiff John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church "has no authority" to confer priestly ordination on women (priestly ordination, 22 May 1994, n. 4).

Then there is a socio-pedagogical aspect well known to those who frequent the sacristies: the little girls, often more ready, diligent and mature peers, tend to prevail in small groups; experience shows that, where the number of girls in the presbytery becomes significantly higher, quite a few boys back away perceiving that service as "a thing for girls". The paradoxical result is that precisely the most potentially vocational subjects distance themselves from the heart of the celebration. It would therefore be appropriate to ask: in a West with a high average age of priests, empty seminaries or reduced in number of seminarians to a minimum, with more and more parishes without a parish priest, it makes sense to give up what can favor even a few seeds of vocation to pursue the - worldly and politically correct - logic of "clerical pink quotas"?

To understand "what is possible" and above all "what is best", the starting point is not opinions but liturgical norms. The liturgy is not a field of sociological experimentation: «Absolutely none, not even the priest, add, removes or changes anything on his own initiative" (Holy Council, 22 §3). The functions of the ministers are outlined with precise calls for sobriety, roles and limits (General Missal Traditional, NN. 100; 107; 187-193). On the ministerial side, the Holy Pontiff Paul VI replaced the ancient "minor orders" with the established ministries of reader and acolyte, then reserved for lay men (cf.. Ministries, NN. I-IV). The Supreme Pontiff Francis has modified can. 230 § 1, opening the established ministries of lector and acolyte to women as well, but these are not identified with the service of altar boys, which falls within the temporary deputation foreseen by can. 230 §2 and concerns the help at the altar entrusted from time to time to lay people (crf. The owner of the owner, 2021; CIC 1983, can. 230 §1-2).

Two texts from the Holy See they then set the perimeter with rare clarity. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship, addressed to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences for the correct interpretation of can. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93), recognized the possibility - at the discretion of the bishop - of also admitting women to serve at the altar, specifying, however, that "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having altar boys" and that no subjective right to serve arises from admission (cf.. Information 30 [1994] 333-335). A few years later, the Letter of the same Congregation (27 July 2001) they further clarified that the bishop can allow altar girls but cannot force parish priests to use them; that the non-ordained faithful "do not have a right" to serve at the altar; that the obligation to promote male groups of altar boys remains, also for their proven vocational value. It is "always very appropriate" - states the document - to follow the noble tradition of boys at the altar (Latin text in Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Trad.. en. in Information 38 [2002] 46-48).

Inside this picture, the pedagogy of the altar shines again: proximity to the Mystery educates with the power of signs, introduces a filial confidence with the Eucharist e, for many kids, it was a real one “lecture” of discernment. The Church which does not have the power to confer the Order on women (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1577; priestly ordination, 4) is called to prudently safeguard those spaces that have historically proven fertile for the emergence of priestly vocations. This does not devalue female presence and charisma; on the contrary, frees the community from the temptation to clericalize the laity and to laicize the clergy - and in particular women - by symbolically pushing them into the presbyterate, as if that were the only place "that matters" (cf.. reminder about clericalism in the gospel of joy, 102-104). There are very rich paths for girls and young people, established and in fact: established readership or, according to the cases, practiced as a reading in the celebration, singing and sacred music, sacristy service, ministries of the Word and charity, catechesis e, today, also the established ministry of catechist (The old ministry, 2021). These are areas in which the "female genius" offers the Church a decisive contribution without generating impossible expectations regarding access to the priesthood (cf.. The old ministry, 2021; Spirit ofi, 2021; can. 230 §1-2).

The experience of other particular Churches sheds further light on the issue. In Sri Lanka, where the average age of the clergy is much lower than Italy and the seminaries are populated with vocations, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, indicated the use of altar girls as inappropriate for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, indeed, as adults they will be able to enter the seminary; it therefore makes sense to preserve typically male educational spaces around the altar, without taking anything away from the rich female participation in other areas? In other contexts, like in the United States, some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained all-male groups of altar servers precisely on the basis of the texts of 1994 he was born in 2001. It's not about "excluding", but to enhance a practice that in certain places proves to be more fruitful for vocational pastoral care (cf.. diocesan lines: Diocese of Lincoln – Nebraska; Phoenix – Cathedral Parish; other local realities of the United States of America).

At this point, however, someone calls for pink quotas in the presbytery, as if symmetrical representation were the litmus test of the valorization of women. A logic, that of pink quotas, which however belongs to the sociopolitical; the liturgy is not a parliament to be represented proportionally, it is the action of Christ and the Church. Discernment applies here, not the claim. And discernment asks: in a territory with few priests and few vocations, which concrete choice best promotes the growth of future priests without debasing the presence of women? The Holy See's responses leave no misunderstandings: admitting girls is permitted when appropriate, but it is appropriate and even necessary to promote male groups of altar boys, also in view of vocational pastoral care (cf.. Information 30 [1994] 333-335; Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Information 38 [2002] 46-48).

The thesis has also been circulating in recent months — taken up by the theologian Marinella Perroni, according to which Columbus' choice would constitute a perfect "syllogism" but "to be rejected", because it would make the group of altar boys impervious to differences and therefore harmful.

Subject, that of this theologian, which confuses social engineering and liturgy in a truly superficial and crude way. The liturgy does not aim to represent all differences but to serve the Mystery according to common norms (cf.. Holy Council 22 §3). The official sources, as seen, they remember three elementary things: the ability to admit girls is possible but does not create rights; the bishop can authorize, but do not impose; and "the obligation remains" to promote men's groups for vocational reasons as well (cf.. Information 37 [2001] 397-399; Trad.. en. Information 38 [2002] 46-48; the more Circular letter the 15.03.1994, Prot. 2482/93).

In other words: Cardinal Albert Malcom Ranjith does not exclude women: exercises pastoral prudence precisely foreseen by law and practice. Mistaking this prudence for misogyny is pure ideology, not discernment. And if ecclesial vitality really depended on a "pink" censer, then two millennia of female saints, of women doctors and martyrs - without ever claiming the ministerial altar - would be worth less than a share: an unfair conclusion towards women e, Furthermore, irrational for faith (cf.. Marinella Perroni: "Sri Lanka, but because the ban on altar girls would favor priestly vocations?», The Osservatore Romano in Women Church World, 1 February 2025).

Definitely, no quotas are needed at the altar, we need hearts educated in the Mystery. It is legitimate - and sometimes appropriate - for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate - and often wiser - to maintain male groups of altar servers when this benefits the clarity of the signs and the promotion of vocations. It is not a surrender to the “male order”, but an act of pastoral prudence at the service of the entire community.

If we love girls, we offer them great ministries and services according to the Gospel: Word, charity, catechesis, custody and decoration of the church and the altar, musica, singing... without reducing their dignity to a position next to the thurible. Instead, if we love the kids, let us intelligently guard those educational spaces that, for centuries, they helped the Church to recognize and accompany the gift of a priestly life.

A final note as a personal testimony: I was nine years old when at the end of Holy Mass I went home telling my parents that I wanted to become a priest. Which was taken as one of the many typical fantasies of children, capable of saying today that they want to be astronauts, tomorrow the strawberry growers, the doctors the day before tomorrow. but yet, what seemed like a fantasy, it turned out not to be so: thirty-five years later I received the Holy Order of Priests. Yup, mine was an adult vocation, but born as a child, while I was serving as an altar boy at the altar, at the age of nine.

the Island of Patmos, 8 October 2025

.

_____________________________________________

ARE «PINK QUOTAS» AT THE ALTAR NECESSARY? FROM FEMINIST THEO‑IDEOLOGY TO SRI LANKA’S PASTORAL WISDOM

A bishop may permit altar girls, but he cannot require pastors to use them. The non-ordained faithful «have no right» to serve at the altar, and there remains an obligation to promote boys’ altar-server groups, also for their proven vocational value.

— Ecclesial actuality —

.

.

Seeing children around the altar gladdens the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe — beginning with our Italy — where the birth rate has been flat for decades and the average age of the population, and of the clergy, keeps rising. In such a fragile context, the presence of children in church is already good news, a foretaste of the future.

In the video: His Excellency Msgr. Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Bishop of Galle (Sri Lanka)

When two parents apologized to me at the end of Holy Mass for their two rather noisy children, I replied: «As long as children make noise in our churches, it means we are still alive». I did not add then — but I do so now in passing — that when we no longer hear the voices of children in our churches, we will surely hear the voices of the muezzins singing from the bell towers of our churches turned into mosques, as has already happened in various countries of Northern Europe.

The examples are well known, I will mention only a few: in Hamburg the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was purchased and reopened as the Al‑Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam the Fatih Moskee occupies the former Catholic Church of St Ignatius («The Sower»); in Bristol the Jamia Mosque stands in the former St. Katherine’s Church. As for the amplified call of the muezzin, the city of Cologne launched in 2021 a municipal pilot allowing the Friday call, which was then stabilized in 2024.

In recent decades, in not a few dioceses it has become customary to admit girls as well to service at the altar. Many bishops and pastors, though not fond of the practice, have tolerated or maintained it to avoid controversy. Over the years, some of those girls became adolescents and young women and continued serving, not without embarrassment for certain priests — including the undersigned — who, with the greatest courtesy, have never allowed girls, and especially adolescent young women, to serve.

To be clear, this is not about forbidding women certain services, least of all young girls. It is about thinking with pedagogical and pastoral wisdom: how many priestly vocations have been born at the altar, within a group of altar boys? And how does one explain to a girl who loves the liturgy that the sacrament of Orders is not, and cannot be, a path open to her as a woman? The doctrine is crystal‑clear: «A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly» (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes herself to be bound by the choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible» cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1577); and Saint John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church «has no authority whatsoever» to confer priestly ordination on women (cf. priestly ordination (1994), n. 4; CDF, The answer to the problem (1995).

There is also a socio‑pedagogical aspect known to those who frequent sacristies: girls — often readier, more diligent and mature than their peers — tend to take the lead in small groups; experience shows that where the number of girls in the sanctuary clearly exceeds that of boys, not a few boys withdraw, perceiving the service as a «girls’ thing». The paradoxical result is that those most potentially receptive to a vocation drift away from the heart of the celebration. In a West where the average age of priests is high, seminaries are empty or reduced and parishes are without pastors, does it make sense to give up what may foster even a few vocations in order to pursue the worldly logic of “clerical pink quotas”?

To understand not only «what is allowed» but above all «what is fitting», we must start from the liturgical norms. The liturgy is not a field for sociological experiments: «Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority» (cf. Holy Council, 22 §3). The functions of ministers are laid out with sober precision (cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal). As for ministries, Saint Paul VI replaced the former “minor orders” with the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte, then reserved to lay men cf. Ministries, 1972). Pope Francis modified can. 230 § 1, opening the instituted ministries of lector and acolyte also to women, but these are not to be identified with altar‑server service, which belongs to the temporary deputation of can. 230 §2 and concerns assistance at the altar entrusted case by case to lay faithful (cf. Spirit of, 2021).

Two texts of the Holy See clarified the matter with unusual precision. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of Bishops’ Conferences on the correct interpretation of can. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93) recognized the possibility — at the bishop’s discretion — of admitting girls to service at the altar, while stressing that it is “always very appropriate” to maintain the noble tradition of boys as altar servers, and that such admission does not create any subjective “right” to serve (Information 30 (1994) 333–335). A few years later, the Letter of the same Congregation (27 July 2001) clarified further: the bishop may permit altar girls but cannot oblige pastors to use them; the non‑ordained faithful «have no right» to serve; and there remains the obligation to promote male groups also for their vocational value (cf. Information 37 (2001) 397–399; .Information 38 (2002) 46–48).

The experience of other local Churches also sheds light. In Sri Lanka — where the average age of diocesan clergy is much lower than in Italy and the seminaries are well populated — the Metropolitan Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, indicated the inopportuneness of altar girls for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, as adults, can enter the seminary; it therefore makes sense to preserve characteristically male formative spaces around the altar, without in any way diminishing the rich female participation elsewhere (see his pastoral indication cited here: The Rudder).

In other contexts, such as the United States, some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained boys‑only altar‑server groups precisely on the basis of the 1994 and 2001 texts. This is not “exclusion”, but the promotion of a practice that in certain places proves more fruitful for vocational ministry (cf. Diocese of Lincoln (policy explanation; and the 2011 decision at the Cathedral of Sts. Simon & Jude, Phoenix — news report).

In recent months, this thesis has been taken up by the italian theologian Mrss Marinella Perroni, who argues that the choice made in Colombo follows a «syllogism» that may be logically neat but should nonetheless be rejected.

In doing so, however, her argument slides from liturgy into social engineering. The liturgy is not a proportional mirror of social constituencies; it is the Church’s worship of God according to norms that safeguard the clarity of signs and the freedom of grace (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The Holy See’s documents, as shown above, recall three elementary points: the faculty to admit girls is possible but does not create subjective rights; the diocesan bishop may authorize but not impose it on pastors; and there remains the obligation to promote boys’ altar‑server groups also for vocational reasons (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335; Information 37 (2001) 397–399; Information 38 (2002) 46–48). To mistake this prudence for misogyny is ideology, not discernment (See Perroni’s article: "Sri Lanka, but why would the ban on altar girls encourage priestly vocations?» — L’Osservatore Romano, the official organ of the Holy See Italian original — English version).

In short, the altar does not need quotas; it needs hearts formed by the Mystery. It is legitimate — and at times opportune — for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate — and often wiser — to maintain male altar‑server groups where this serves the clarity of signs and the promotion of vocations. This is not a capitulation to a “male order”, but an act of pastoral prudence in service of the whole community.

A concluding personal note: I was nine years old when, after Holy Mass, I went home and told my parents I wanted to become a priest. They took it as one of the many fantasies typical of children, who today want to be astronauts, tomorrow strawberry growers, and the day after doctors. And yet, what seemed a fantasy proved otherwise: thirty‑five years later I received sacred priestly ordination. Yes, mine was an adult vocation — but born as a child, while serving as an altar boy at the altar.

from the Island of Patmos, October 8, 2025

.

_______________________________________________

ARE THE “PINK FEES” NECESSARY AT THE ALTAR? FROM FEMINIST THEO‑IDEOLOGY TO THE PASTORAL WISDOM OF SRI LANKA

The bishop may allow the altar girls, but cannot force parish priests to use them. Non-ordained faithful "have no right" to serve at the altar and the obligation to promote male groups of altar servers remains., also for its proven vocational value.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

See children around the altar cheers the heart and spirit. It is a sign of life in a Europe — starting with our Italy — in which the birth rate has been stagnant for decades and the average age of the population, and of the clergy, it doesn't stop increasing. In such a fragile context, The presence of children in the church is already good news, a preview of the future.

In the video: His Excellency Monsignor Raymond Kingsley Wickramasinghe, Obispo de bilal (Sri Lanka)

When, at the end of the Holy Mass, Two parents apologized to me for their two noisy children., I reassured them by saying: «As long as children make noise in our churches, It means we're still alive.". I didn't add it then — but I do it now as an aside —: when we no longer hear the voices of children in our churches, surely we will hear the muezzins singing from the bell towers of our churches converted into mosques, as has already happened in several Northern European countries. The examples are known; I quote only a few: in Hamburg, the former Lutheran Kapernaumkirche was acquired and reopened as Al-Nour Mosque; in Amsterdam, The Fatih Moskee has its headquarters in the former Catholic church of Saint Ignatius; A Bristol, The Jamia Mosque stands on the old St. Katherine’s Church. Regarding the muezzin's call on loudspeaker, the city of Cologne began in 2021 a municipal project that allows the call on Fridays, subsequently stabilized in 2024.

In recent decades, Many dioceses have also admitted girls to the service of the altar.. Many bishops and parish priests, still not appreciating it, have tolerated or maintained the practice to avoid controversy. As the years go by, some have continued as adolescents and young people, not without a certain embarrassment for some priests, including who writes, who with utmost courtesy has never allowed girls — and especially adolescents — to serve at the altar. It is worth clarifying this: It is not about denying women certain services, but to think with pastoral and pedagogical wisdom. How many priestly vocations were born next to the altar, in the group of altar boys? And how do you explain to a girl who is enthusiastic about the liturgy that the sacrament of Holy Orders is not — and cannot be — a perspective open to her feminine condition?? The doctrine is very clear: «Only the baptized male validly receives sacred ordination» (cf. CIC 1983, can. 1024); «The Church recognizes itself as bound by the election made by the Lord himself. For this reason, "The ordination of women is not possible." (cf. CEC n.1577); and Saint John Paul II definitively confirmed that the Church "does not in any way have the power" to confer priestly ordination on women (cf. priestly ordination, 22 May 1994, n. 4).

There is also a socio-pedagogical aspect well known by those who frequent the sacristies: the girls, often sooner, diligent and mature than their contemporaries, tend to prevail in small groups; experience shows that, where the number of girls in the presbytery becomes clearly higher, not a few boys withdraw, perceiving that service as “a girl thing”. The paradoxical result is that precisely the subjects with the greatest vocational potential move away from the heart of the celebration.. Does it make sense, so, in a West with a high average priestly age, empty or reduced seminaries and parishes without a priest, renouncing what can favor even a few germs of vocation to pursue the logic — but politically correct — of the “pink clerical quotas”?

To understand not only what “can be”, but above all what is “convenient”, the starting point is the liturgical norms, not the opinions. The liturgy is not a field for sociological experiments: "In no way does it allow anyone, not even the priest, add, remove or change anything on one's own initiative" (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The functions of the ministers are outlined soberly, with roles and limits (cf. General Missal Traditional [IGMR], NN. 100; 107; 187–193).

In the field of ministries, Saint Paul VI replaced the old “minor orders” with the instituted ministries of reader and acolyte, then reserved for lay men (cf. Ministries, NN. I -IV). Pope Francis later modified the can. 230 § 1, opening these instituted ministries also to women, but they do not identify with the altar boy service, which belongs to the temporary deputation provided for by can. 230 §2 (cf. Spirit of, 2021; CIC 1983, can. 230 §1–2).

Two texts from the Holy See They then established the perimeter with rare clarity. The Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences on the correct interpretation of the canon. 230 §2 (15 March 1994, Prot. 2482/93) recognized the possibility — at the discretion of the bishop — of also admitting girls to the altar service, specifying at the same time that "it is always very appropriate" to maintain the noble tradition of altar boy children and that such admission does not create any subjective "right" to serve (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335). After a few years, las Letter from the same Congregation (27 July of 2001) they clarified even more: the bishop may allow the altar girls, but you cannot force parish priests to use them; non-ordained faithful "have no right" to serve; and the obligation to promote male groups also remains due to their proven vocational value. (cf. Information 37 (2001) 397–399; see also the Italian translation: Information 38 (2002) 46–48).

The experience of other particular Churches further illuminates the issue. In Sri Lanka — where the average age of the diocesan clergy is much lower than in Italy and the seminaries are well populated —, the metropolitan archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Albert Malcolm Ranjith, pointed out the inappropriateness of altar girls for pastoral and pedagogical reasons: none of them, already adult, you will be able to enter the seminar; therefore, it makes sense to preserve typically masculine educational spaces around the altar, without taking anything away from the rich female participation in other areas (see this pastoral indication cited here: The Rudder).

In other contexts, like in the United States, Some dioceses and parishes have legitimately maintained all-male altar boy groups precisely on the basis of the texts of 1994 and 2001. This is not "exclusion", but the promotion of a praxis that in certain places appears more fruitful for vocational ministry (see the Diocese of Lincoln (policy explanation); and the decision of 2011 in the Cathedral of Saints Simon and Jude, Phoenix — journalistic chronicle).

In these months, This thesis has been taken up by the theologian Marinella Perroni, who maintains that Colombo's option responds to an impeccable but, in your opinion, rejectable. However, His argument confuses liturgy with social engineering. The liturgy is not a proportional mirror of social belongings; It is the Church's worship of God according to norms that safeguard the clarity of the signs and the freedom of grace. (cf. Holy Council 22 §3). The documents of the Holy See, as we have seen, remember three basic points: girls can be admitted, but this does not create subjective rights; the diocesan bishop can authorize it, do not impose it on the parish priests; and the obligation to promote male groups of altar boys also for vocational reasons remains. (cf. Information 30 (1994) 333–335; Information 37 (2001) 397–399; Information 38 (2002) 46–48). Taking this caution for misogyny is ideology, non-discernment. See Perroni's article: "Sri Lanka, but because the ban on altar girls would favor priestly vocations?» — Italian original — english version.

Ultimately, at the altar there is no need for fees, but hearts educated by the Mystery. It is legitimate — and sometimes appropriate — for some particular Churches to admit girls to service; and it is equally legitimate — and often more prudent — to maintain male groups of altar servers when this serves the clarity of the signs and the promotion of vocations.. It is not a surrender to the “masculine order”, but an act of pastoral prudence at the service of the entire community.

A personal note as a testimony: I was nine years old when, at the end of the Holy Mass, I came home telling my parents that I wanted to be a priest.. They took it as one of many children's fantasies., able to say today that they want to be astronauts, Strawberry growers tomorrow and doctors tomorrow. Y, however, what seemed like a fantasy was not: thirty-five years later I received sacred priestly ordination. Yeah, mine was an adult vocation, but born as a boy, while serving as an altar boy.

From the island of Patmos, 8 October 2025

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

(English text after the Italian)

 

From dust to water: The meaning of the austere symbol of the ashes

The holy ashes that are traditionally derived from the burning of the Benedetti olive branches for the Palm Sunday of the previous year perform their entrance door function for the strong time of Lent and already let the man renewed by the risen Christ already glimpsed in the waters of baptism, as the liturgy makes us relive in the holy vigil of Easter night.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

PDF print format article – PDF Article print format

.

Yesterday, with the liturgy of the ashes The Holy Time of Lent has begun for the Church. Once that, According to what reported in the rules for the liturgical year and the calendar, has the purpose of preparing for Easter. The Light Liturgy Guide to the celebration of the Easter mystery both the catechumens, through the different degrees of Christian initiation, both the faithful by means of the memory of baptism and through penance.

As everyone knows The Holy Time of Lent begins with a symbol that is called austere: Receive ash on the head. In the Old Testament the ash is a symbol of what is provisional, perishable and as such is reduced to powder, As you read in Job 10, 9; or because it is worthless (Gen 18, 27). Always in the Old Testament, ash was a sign of desolation and mourning. So here are the gestures to spread ash on the head (2Sam 13, 19), sit in ash as Job (Gib 2, 8), roll in ash (This 27, 30), feed on ash as of bread (Shall 102). Davide exposed his sins in ashes, The ninivites after the preaching of Jonah covered the ash's head. The ash was used in purification rites, When a red cow was burned whose ashes were then thrown into the water, used for the various ritual purifications (Num 19, 1 e ssg). Above all, the ash brings the thought to the words that God addresses to Adam after sin: "Dust, You are and in dust you will return " (Gen 3,19); They underline the punishment of death and the nothing of the creature shaped by soil powder.

In the Middle Ages, public penitents who had to atone for their faults and receive the sacrament of penance as a second baptism presented themselves at the beginning of Lent covered with ash and with the cilicio. In the Christian liturgy, also currently, The expression that the priest uses blessing and imposing the ashes on Wednesday that marks the beginning of Lent are these are: "Remember that you are dust and powder you will return". Accept, that is, The meaning of pain, of the mourning of death as a consequence of the sin and fragility of man. Hence the duty to recognize his faults and to engage in a healthy life, as the alternative formula of the imposition of the ashes urges: "Get converted and believe in the Gospel". The ashes reminding us that we are dust helps us to reinvigorate the sense of true Christian consciousness that accuses us of being guilty and does not give us peace until we have found remedy for our inclination to evil.

Penance becomes a need: We must make penance to denounce ourselves to the sky and the earth that we are miserable people. The obligation to implore mercy and to demonstrate with some of our acts that we repudiate the evil made and the evil we are able to do. Far from then to be a sign of superstition, The ash reminds us of a theological truth well synthesized by the words of the blessing, the oldest one, that can be used on Wednesday that from the beginning of the Holy Lent:

«O God who does not want death but the conversion of sinners, It does that recognizing that our body will return to dust, The exercise of penance obtains the forgiveness of sins and a renewed life in the image of the Risen Lord. For Christ, our Lord. Amen».

The same concept It is also expressed in the renewed formula of the blessing of the ashes that reads:

«O God who pity of those who regret and give your peace to those who convert, Listen with paternal goodness the prayers of your people and bless these children of yours who will receive the austere symbol of the ashes, Because through the spiritual itinerary of Lent they come completely renewed to celebrate your child's Easter ".

And it is also repeated in the alternative formula in which these words are used:

«O God who does not want the death of sinners but the conversion, Listen to our prayer benign and bless these ashes that we are about to receive on our boss, recognizing that we are dust and powder we will return. The exercise of Lenten penance obtains the forgiveness of sins and a renewed life in the image of your risen son, who lives and reigns over the centuries of the centuries. Amen».

Prayers, Remember above, They therefore present us the right perspective from which to look at the sign of the ashes imposed on the head of those who start the Lent itinerary with good will. It is essentially a gesture of humility, what does it mean: I recognize myself for what they are, A fragile creature, made of land and destined for the earth, but also made in the image of God and destined for him. Dust, Yes, but loved, shaped by the love of God, animated by his vital breath and capable of recognizing his voice and therefore to answer him; free e, because of this, even capable of disobeying him, giving in to the temptation of pride and self -sufficiency. Here is the sin, mortal disease soon entered to pollute the blessed land which is the human being. Created in the image of the saint and the right man has lost his innocence and now he can return to being right only thanks to the justice of God, the justice of love that, As San Paolo writes:

"It has manifested itself through faith in Christ" (RM 3,22).

Just the second reading of the Liturgy of the Word of Ash Wednesday, contains Paul's appeal to let himself be reconciled with God (cf. 2Color 5,20), Through one of his famous paradoxes that leads all the reflection on justice to the mystery of Christ. Saint Paul writes:

«He who had known no sin [that is, his son made man] God sinned him in our favor, because in him we could become justice of God " (2Color 5,21).

In the heart of Christ, that is, in the center of his divine-human person, All the drama of freedom has been played in decisive and definitive terms. God brought his own design of salvation to the extreme consequences, remaining faithful to his love even at the cost of delivering his unigenous son to death and death of Croce. Divine justice is discouraged here, deeply different from the human one: «Thanks to the action of Christ, We can enter "bigger" justice, which is that of love " (Benedict XVI, Message for Lent, 2010)

Holy Lent, while starting with the austere gesture of the ashes that makes us bow the head, However, it widens our horizon and oriented us towards eternal life, Since on this earth we are on pilgrimage:

«We have not here a stable city, But let's go in search of the future " (EB 13,14).

Lent while it makes us understand the relativity of the assets of this land and therefore it makes us capable of necessary renunciations, It also gives us the freedom to do the good, to open the earth in the light of the sky, in the presence of God among us.

So the holy ashes which are traditionally obtained from the burning of the Benedetti olive branches for the Palm Sunday of the previous year perform their entrance door function for the strong time of Lent and already let the man renewed by Christ risen and reborn in the waters of baptism, as the liturgy makes us relive in the holy vigil of Easter night.

Florence, 6 March 2025

Beginning of Lent

.

_____________________________

FROM DUST TO WATER: THE MEANING OF THE AUSTERE SYMBOL OF ASHES

The holy ashes which are traditionally obtained from the burning of the olive branches blessed for Palm Sunday of the previous year perform their function as the gateway to the strong season of Lent and already allow us to glimpse the man renewed by the Risen Christ and reborn in the waters of baptism, as the liturgy makes us relive in the Holy Vigil of Easter night

— liturgical pastoral —

.

Yesterday, with the Liturgy of Ashes, the holy season of Lent began for the Church. A time which, according to what is reported in the norms and the calendar for the liturgical year, has the purpose of preparing for Easter. The Lenten Liturgy guides both the catechumens, through the different degrees of Christian initiation, and the faithful through the memory of baptism and through penance in the celebration of the Paschal mystery.

As everyone knows, the holy season of Lent begins with a symbol that is defined as austere: receiving ashes on the head. In the Old Testament, ashes are a symbol of what is temporary, perishable and as such is reduced to dust, as we read in Job 10:9; or because it is worthless (Gen 18:27). Also in the Old Testament, ashes were a sign of desolation and mourning. Here then are the gestures of sprinkling ashes on the head (2Sam 13:19), sitting in ashes like Job (Job 2:8), rolling in ashes (This 27:30), eating ashes like bread (Ps 102). David atoned for his sins in ashes, the Ninevites after Jonah’s preaching covered their heads in ashes. Ashes were used in purification rites, when a red cow was burned and its ashes were then thrown into the water used for the various ritual purifications (Num 19:1ff). Above all, ashes bring to mind the words that God addressed to Adam after his sin: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19); they underline the punishment of death and the nothingness of the creature shaped from the dust of the ground.

In the Middle Ages, public penitents who had to atone for their sins and receive the Sacrament of Penance as a second baptism appeared at the beginning of Lent covered in ashes and wearing sackcloths. Today, In the Christian liturgy, the expression that the priest uses when blessing and imposing the ashes on Wednesday which marks the beginning of Lent are these:

«Remember that you are dust and to dust you will return».

That is, I accept the meaning of pain, of death mourning as a consequence of sin and man’s fragility. From this comes the duty to recognize one’s faults and to commit to a healthy life, as exhorted by the alternative formula for the imposition of ashes:

«Convert and believe in the Gospel».

The ash, reminding us that we are dust, helps us to reinvigorate the sense of true Christian conscience which accuses us of being guilty and does not give us peace until we have found a remedy for our inclination to evil.

Penance becomes a need: we must do penance to denounce ourselves to heaven and earth that we are miserable people. We have the obligation to implore mercy and to demonstrate with some of our actions that we repudiate the evil done and the evil we are capable of doing. Far from being a sign of superstition, the ash reminds us of a theological truth well summarized by the words of the blessing, the oldest one, which can be used on the Wednesday that begins Holy Lent:

«O God who does not want death but the conversion of sinners, grant that by recognizing that our body will return to dust, the exercise of penance obtains for us the forgiveness of sins and a renewed life in the image of the risen Lord. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen» (From the Roman ritual)

The same concept is also expressed in the renewed formula of the blessing of the ashes which reads:

«O God who has mercy on those who repent and gives your peace to those who convert, listen with paternal goodness to the prayers of your people and bless these children of yours who will receive the austere symbol of the ashes, so that through the spiritual itinerary of Lent they may arrive completely renewed to celebrate the Easter of your Son».

And it is also repeated in the alternative formula in which these words are used:

«O God who does not want the death of sinners but conversion, listen kindly to our prayer and bless these ashes that we are about to receive on our heads, recognizing that we are dust and to dust we will return. May the exercise of Lenten penance obtain for us the forgiveness of sins and a renewed life in the image of your risen Son, who lives and reigns forever and ever. Amen».

The prayers mentioned above therefore present us with the right perspective from which to look at the sign of the ashes placed on the heads of those who begin the Lenten journey with good will. It is essentially a gesture of humility, which means: I recognize myself for what I am, a fragile creature, made of earth and destined for the earth, but also made in the image of God and destined for Him. Dust, yes, but loved, shaped by the love of God, animated by his vital breath and capable of recognizing his voice and therefore responding to him; free and, for this reason, also capable of disobeying him, giving in to the temptation of pride and self-sufficiency. Here is sin, a deadly disease that soon began to pollute the blessed earth that is the human being. Created in the image of the Holy and the Just, man has lost his innocence and can now return to being just only thanks to the justice of God, the justice of love which, as Saint Paul writes:

«was manifested through faith in Christ» (Rom 3:22).

Precisely the second reading of the Liturgy of the Word on Ash Wednesday contains Paul’s appeal to be reconciled with God (see 2 Color 5:20), through one of his famous paradoxes which leads all reflection on justice to the mystery of Christ. Saint Paul writes:

«For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him» (2 Color 5:21).

In the heart of Christ, that is, in the center of his divine-human Person, the entire drama of freedom was played out in decisive and definitive terms. God took his plan of salvation to the extreme consequences, remaining faithful to his love even at the cost of handing over his only begotten Son to death and death on the cross. Here divine justice is revealed, profoundly different from human justice:

«Thanks to the action of Christ, we can enter into the “greater” justice, which is that of love» (Benedict XVI, Message for Lent, 2010)

Holy Lent, although it begins with the austere gesture of the ashes that makes us bow our heads, nevertheless broadens our horizon and orients us towards eternal life, since on this earth we are on a pilgrimage:

«For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the one that is to come» (Heb 13:14).

While Lent makes us understand the relativity of the goods of this earth and therefore makes us capable of necessary renunciations, it also gives us the freedom to do good, to open the earth to the light of Heaven, to the presence of God among us.

Thus the holy ashes which are traditionally obtained from the burning of the olive branches blessed for Palm Sunday of the previous year perform their function as the gateway to the strong season of Lent and already allow us to glimpse the man renewed by the Risen Christ and reborn in the waters of baptism, as the liturgy makes us relive in the Holy Vigil of Easter night.

Florence, 6 March 2025

Beginning of Lent

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.